DVDActive uses cookies to remember your actions, such as your answer in the poll. Cookies are
also used by third-parties for statistics, social media and advertising. By using this website, it is
assumed that you agree to this.

Walt Disney Studios reveals the final details and highres artwork for the film

Further Details:
Walt Disney Studios has announced DVD ($29.99), Blu-ray/DVD Combo ($39.99) and 4-disc 3D Blu-ray/DVD Combo ($49.99) releases of John Carter for June 5th. The only extra material on the DVD release will be an audio commentary with the filmmakers and a 100 Years In The Making featurette which follows the journey of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ story, from its origins as a pulp novel to its arrival onscreen. The Blu-ray releases will include the DVD features, plus Deleted Scenes with Optional Commentary by Director Andrew Stanton, a Disney Second Screen feature, a 360 Degrees of John Carter feature, and Barsoom Bloopers. The 4-disc release will also include a digital copy of the film. We've attached package artwork below:

Synopsis

Quote: As a warrior lost on Earth, John Carter is magically transported to Mars, where the fate of the planet and its people ultimately rest in his hands. With surprising new powers, and epic battles, he rises to become the man he is meant to be and the hero he truly is.

Advertisements

Comments

Reply

Message

Enter the message here then press submit. The username, password and message are required. Please make the message constructive, you are fully responsible for the legality of anything you contribute. Terms & conditions apply.

"Stanton often rejected marketing ideas from the studio, according to those who worked on the film. Stanton's ideas were used instead, and he ignored criticism that using Led Zeppelin's "Kashmir", a song recorded in 1974, in the trailer would make it seem less current to the contemporary younger audiences the film sought. He also chose billboard imagery that failed to resonate with prospective audiences, and put together a preview reel that did not get a strong reception from a convention audience. Stanton said, “My joy when I saw the first trailer for Star Wars is I saw a little bit of almost everything in the movie, and I had no idea how it connected, and I had to go see the movie. So the last thing I’m going to do is ruin that little kid’s experience.”

jmm wrote: We have seen some c**ppy cover art from many studios, so c**ppy actually that trying to rank them somehow usually feels like sarcastic hyperbole.

But this has to be some of the WORST cover art of ALL TIMES, worthy of a place at the Top-10. And that's no hyperbole. I wish it was, but it is not.

Both the concept and the execution are so weak, so poor and careless, so wrong, that I am really at a loss.

No matter how poorly this movie did at the box office, there is always some effort and time devoted to how a movie will be released to the home theater market, so that cover is not just bad, is DELIBERATE. The reason why the marketing people at Disney has deemed that appropriate is completely beyond me. It's almost like they are trying too hard to keep having a self-fulfilling prophecy, making this as much of a commercial failure as possible.

I completely agree. It's like Disney is doing everything they can to make this movie fail. These are really the worst covers I've ever seen for a home-video release.

We have seen some c**ppy cover art from many studios, so c**ppy actually that trying to rank them somehow usually feels like sarcastic hyperbole.

But this has to be some of the WORST cover art of ALL TIMES, worthy of a place at the Top-10. And that's no hyperbole. I wish it was, but it is not.

Both the concept and the execution are so weak, so poor and careless, so wrong, that I am really at a loss.

No matter how poorly this movie did at the box office, there is always some effort and time devoted to how a movie will be released to the home theater market, so that cover is not just bad, is DELIBERATE. The reason why the marketing people at Disney has deemed that appropriate is completely beyond me. It's almost like they are trying too hard to keep having a self-fulfilling prophecy, making this as much of a commercial failure as possible.

In my opinion, the cover art shown here illustrates the real reason why this movie failed to generate any major attention and enthusiasm from the public.

Look at ALL the posters and trailers for this film. All you see is bland, uninspired and derivative visuals. It looked like a B-grade Avatar set in the desert, with an Attack of the Clones coliseum battle thrown in.

Don't get me wrong, I saw the film in 3D and it was enjoyable, but there was barely one thing I hadn't seen many times before.

The rationale that the original story came way before all of the films it inspired is irrelevant. Andrew Stanton's massive Pixar success made him arrogant and he thought he do anything.

i expected this to be horrendous given the reviews and the poor box office turnout but i really really enjoyed this. it felt like an old school sci-fi flick, really fun stuff.

I do find the marketing behind this movie very strange. This had a ridiculously enormous budget and should have been promoted heavily for months and months beforehand and given the 'summer blockbuster' treatment. Instead, Disney kept this movie so quiet and barely promoted and it's almost as if they didn't care. Very odd considering the movie is actually good. It had a bit of a National Treasure vibe about it and they did great. I dont know, I don't get it at all.

If Disney really did spend $100 million on promotion, they didn't do a very good job of stretching their dollar. For a $250 million film, it was not a very high-profile or aggressive campaign.

I'm not sure the movie can shake that "$200 million loss" tag anytime soon, but it's worth noting Disney's announcement only referred to losses for this quarter. It seems unlikely they'll end up losing that much over the long term.

Anyway, loved the film. Had the kind of spirit movies had back in the late 70s/early 80s.

YlowBstard66 wrote: You know, this film isn't as big of a flop as everyone thinks. It was in the US (grossing $66 million), but worldwide, it has exceeded it's budget in gross and right now sits as the 355th highest grossing film (worldwide) of all-time and it hasn't even opened in many countries. Sure Disney wanted more and definitely wanted a franchise, but on it's own, the flop talk is exaggerated.

You ought to keep in mind that on average, studios earn approximately 55 percent of the final theatrical gross and that the marketing costs are not included in the production budget.

YlowBstard66 wrote: You know, this film isn't as big of a flop as everyone thinks. It was in the US (grossing $66 million), but worldwide, it has exceeded it's budget in gross and right now sits as the 355th highest grossing film (worldwide) of all-time and it hasn't even opened in many countries. Sure Disney wanted more and definitely wanted a franchise, but on it's own, the flop talk is exaggerated.

That said, as a movie it is flawed, but a fun experience anyway.

It is said that "John Carter" had a marketing budget in excess of $100 million. Then the theater chains still need to get their slice of the action. So as of right now, this movie is definitely on the top ten box office flops of all time. Not that has anything to do with the overall quality of the film, but this movie will be lucky to break even once DVD sales are added in.

You know, this film isn't as big of a flop as everyone thinks. It was in the US (grossing $66 million), but worldwide, it has exceeded it's budget in gross and right now sits as the 355th highest grossing film (worldwide) of all-time and it hasn't even opened in many countries. Sure Disney wanted more and definitely wanted a franchise, but on it's own, the flop talk is exaggerated.

The RRP on this is probably going to be $10,000 a pop. Not that Disney are trying to offset their losses or anything. Just by dropping the "Of Mars" piece from the title proved that there was a level of contempt towards sci-fi/fantasy audiences, not to mention that they were trying to market the movie as something other than what it actually was.

It was one of those films which failed to generate any interest with us, and the pile-driving marketing campaign only serves to alienate us from it further. This might be one which is best saved for watching on TV eventually.